User talk:ClovisPt/Archive 3

New World Plants
You have rightly asked for a citation for my claim that there are carvings of Trilliums, Agave and Sunflowers in Rosslyn Chapel. First do you require evidence to show that these plants are not only exotic, but that their provenance is North American as this can be verified by Wikipedia?

Second, my source is the Rosslyn Trust Chapel Guide who identified the plants she described as Aloe Vera. (She claimed these were North American provenance - which is not correct). However, they more closely resemble Agave Americana. http://s3.amazonaws.com/sws-product-images/ROSSLYN/27_X.jpg This image is from the Rosslyn Chapel site. http://www.rosslynchapel.org.uk/ The guide also pointed out the Trilliums near the entrance and there are sunflowers underneath. I think the information about the Trillium is well established and may be in the guide book. The Guide wore a trillium badge. I can't find photos of either of these plants since visitors are not allowed to photograph. There are sunflowers on the external parts of the building. http://www.handdance.com/page24.html

I make no claims about any conclusion from this evidence. I believe that the Indian corn carvings are 19th century due to the style and smooth finish, but the Trilliums and internal sunflowers appear to be 15th century based on the style and weathered appearance. My main source is observation and knowledge of horticultural history. I don't believe that this information has been published and I am happy to explain this in detail on a web page and to cite it.

What is a mystery and will be of interest to many is the question: why did 15th or 19th century masons carve images of exotic plants in this Scottish Chapel?

I would be grateful for your advice on how to proceed.

Robertcurrey (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Los Lunas Decalogue Additions by Yclorfene
Hi,

I'm sorry I didn't respond in a timely manner, I rarely check my Wikipedia messages.

I came across the Los Lunas inscription a while back, and was amazed that there hasn't been a serious scientific investigation into the issue. The only published discussions I could find were those of pseudo-archeologists with a pre-established conclusion.

As a native hebrew speaker and Paleo-Hebrew "expert" I found it exceedingly easy to decipher the inscription, and quickly realized why the real experts didn't take it seriously – nothing about it adds up.

I wish authoritative materials existed on the subject, and I wish I could bring more sources, but until the scientific community sees it as more than a pathetic hoax (and I don't think it is), I'm afraid the translation of someone like me is the best we have...

Yisrael Clorfene 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yclorfene (talk • contribs)

Hi!
I always find you working in the same articles than me... And doing a good job too!! Lol --Againme (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note - it's very appreciated. ClovisPt (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hip hop
This is inappropriate regardless of the persistent nature of the other editor. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the additions. - Reconsider !  12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Contact
Is there a way to contact you via e-mail? Akuvar (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Controversy
See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-12/Bigfoot for a discussion over bias in Bigfoot and Cryptozoology. 03:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mediation of Cryptozoolgy Articles
A Mediation Cabal (Informal Mediation) case to which you have been named a party has come up for mediation by Ronk01   talk. Please navigate to the casepage, located here:, and leave an opening statement as instructed there. You will also need to sign your agreement to the mediation there. If all listed parties do not sign, the case will be referred to RFC and closed immediately. You will be updated on further progress of the mediation on your talk page. 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hunter-gatherer article
WikiProject Anthropology needs your help improving Hunter-gatherer. Given your presumed interest in the prehistoric Clovis people. I was wondering if you might be up for helping out. Thanks for your work. 99.146.26.159 (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're a regular editor, especially if you're heavily involved in that project, let me know about some specifics and I'd be glad to help out. ClovisPt (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pro-life legislation"
We're in the midst of a discussion on my talk page over these edits. I'm arguing that, while Wikipedia respects people's self-identification, even if that self-identification is not strictly NPOV, non-people things like "legislation" or "tax policy" aren't sapient and can't self-identify - meaning that we must describe them in neutral terms (whether by choosing a neutral descriptor "anti-abortion legislation," by attributing the descriptor "a law which he describes as pro-life," or by eliminating the descriptor "a law which would define a fertilized egg as a person"). Care to join? Roscelese (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting me know about the discussion; that was admirably civil of you. I see that it has moved a few times.  Before joining in, I'm going to try to see if Wikipedia has any specific guidelines on the use of the term "pro-life" (and the term "pro-choice") regarding legislation.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry that it's been moving all over the place. I wish you better luck in your search than I had - I couldn't find any statement or consensus on that. Roscelese (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find specific guidelines either. For what it's worth, describing legislation in clear language without using the terms "pro-choice" or "pro-life" seems like the best option to me.  Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that seems to be the consensus we've come to. Any advice, though, on what to do with the phrase "pro-life legislation" when it's not clear from context what it refers to? In most cases I think it can be presumed to refer to anti-abortion legislation, but what do we do? - write "anti-abortion legislation" with a tag in the hopes that someone will know what specific legislation is in question? I feel like it would be weird to say "abortion-related legislation" without saying which side the legislator is on. Roscelese (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For watching my talk. Happy Holidays. Stephen 12:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

inserting personal political bias
makes unwarranted personal attack of me being an "unproductive editor" while undo-ing a very old edit which removed a non-reputable source from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_Corporation&action=history   (Media matters is a highly partisan political action group, not a journalistic source). ClovisPT obviously crawled over all of my edits after not agreeing on political points on an unrelated DISCUSSION page. I view this as an act of revenge / vandalism by ClovisPT.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You will notice that your removal of sourced text at Progressive Corporation has once again been reverted, this time by a different editor. Perhaps "unproductive editor" was too harsh of a statement, but you seem to be mostly interested in trying to add claims along the lines that the Ku Klux Klan is a left wing organization, or that the John Birch Society is a moderate or non-partisan organization.  These are unproductive edits, as they disagree with extensive bodies of reliable sources, and are going to continue to be reverted until there is some sort of sea change in how the majority of experts describe political reality.  These edits also suggest a limited or distorted world view on your part, and you will probably end up having a very frustrating experience on Wikipedia if your purpose here is to push this view.  ClovisPt (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)